2 Comments
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1(1) The fanatic tree-huggers will not be satisfied until the world is back to hunter-gatherer levels of 20,000 BC. To develop a large SUV with fuel consumption comparable to a compact is a huge advance. Would it be better for the environment if people bought small compacts with hybrid systems which have even better mileage numbers? Of course. Is it going to happen? Probably not, or at least not until the smaller vehicles provide comparable safety and comfort. Not to mention there ARE people who actually NEED larger vehicles.
(2) The way to change cultural norms in a free capitalistic society is to offer more attractive alternatives. This SUV is one of these. Not enough? Offer a better mousetrap - a better motor / fuel type, for example. How about better, cheaper, cleaner, more convenient public transportation? I can take the train to the city for $18 round trip or drive for about $32. If I drive with even one passenger (and I always have at least one other with me), it still costs us roughly $32 in tolls, parking, depreciation and gasoline - still less than the train fares. And I go when I want, return when I want. I don't have to ride the (literally) stinking subway when I'm in the city nor am I limited to the stops along the transit routes, which is worth something as well. Yes, I'd prefer to take public transportation, but it has to be less expensive, it has to be clean, it has to meet my scheduling needs.
Don't knock progress / improvement just because it isn't a freaking magic bullet which satisfies some perfect ideal. - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1GE and NBC are doing it for ratings.
The problem of climate change disappears when the computer model uses data from volcanic activity.
You can either believe in volcanoes or global warming, not both.
buried as lame because of the false premise of the article.


What is Digg?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official